We will re-approve posts/comments if you edit them to remove any inappropriate content and alert us to the changes.

No Personal Attacks. You may attack a person's arguments, but not the person. You may attack a belief system's beliefs, or prominent leaders, but not people in the belief system.

No Low-Effort Posts. All posts must either contain an argument, or ask a question that could lead to debate. Either way, you must state your own views on the matter in the body of the text post. If you quote or link to something for the purpose of starting a debate, you must provide your own argument for or against it.

English Is The Medium of Exchange.

No Meta Posts. We ask you refrain from addressing the sub in this manner without first receiving approval from the mods to do so.

Banning Rule. A user will be banned from /r/DebateReligion if the mods conclude from the user's post(s) that the user is deliberately antagonizing, particularly disruptive to the orderly conduct of respectful discourse, or apparently uninterested in participating in open discussion.

Filter posts by subject

The ModWatch

The ModWatch are your community representatives whose job it is to ensure that the moderation of /r/DebateReligion is conducted in a transparent and earnest a manner. If you suspect some unfair or suspicious moderation practices and your attempts to resolve the issue directly with the moderators has left you feeling dissatisfied, the ModWatch are empowered to investigate and report back to the community.

So you are right and these scholars have no idea what they are talking about

Hahaha!

Since when have Indo/Pak scholars been representative of the ummah? You don't know Muslims very well ;)

Argumentum ad populum aside, have you found the source for the claim that the majority of muslim scholars believe so?

Yes. I've already linked you to it. Also, I think you don't really understand what an argumentum ad populum is. Just because many people say something in opposition to you doesn't make it an argumentum ad populum. Please read about these logical fallacies and be better informed about them before throwing around terminology that you don't understand.

I would love to see what the bias is like. Whether Shia scholars are considered scholars, whether Pak/Indo scholars are considered scholars

Clearly, you know even less about Islam than I'd previously thought.

Shia Islam is the second largest of the three Islamic sects. Sects are offshoots of a larger religious group. Thus the beliefs and practices of one sect do not reflect the beliefs and practices of the larger religious group.

Indo/Pak is a shorthand way of saying "Indian and Pakistani" (i.e. a reference to people from India and Pakistan). These are both countries which are defined both by geography and politics. So, an "Indo/Pak scholar" is not a sect of Islam. It refers to an Islamic scholar (i.e. someone who has completed a recognized course in one of several fields of Islamic theology) from either India or Pakistan where the Deobandi ideological movement dominates the Muslim narrative.

because he is in an American university

A person is a university? How can a person be a university? That doesn't make any sense at all. Can I be a house?

That paper is behind a paywall.

Then it's not a form of evidence that you should use to support your argument because there is no way for anyone to independely verify your claims. You do understand the concept of falsifiability in logical discourse, right?

Is your view that Deobandi scholars have no idea what they are talking about?

No. I'm asserting that theirs is but only one perspective and it's a minority perspective in comparison to Islam on a global scale. I can certainly understand why you're so protective of these Deoband and salafis and why you're so protective about Pak Muslims; but that's just a "rainbow complex". Because that's the Islam that you're the most familiar with, you assume that all the world's Muslim are likely to sympathize with their (or you) ideas. Needless to say, that's just a fallacy.

Way to make a fool of yourself! Nope. If you'd actually read the debate in detail, rather than just reading it with what you wanted, you'd have seen that:

I was laughing at alcoholfree because, as a Muslim extremist that supports stoning people to death, he should have known that that stoning wasn't being done properly. You did know that he was a Muslim extremist, didn't you? Or did you think he was an atheist?

I've also clearly stated how disgusting executing people is.

So, by all means, throw some more fallacies at me if it feeds your ego.